Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 18 Minuten schrieb willeica:

I know this interests some people, Pete, but when it comes to photography it is the photographer that counts rather than the camera or lens. I know that this is heresy on a one make photography site. That being said, I occasionally wonder what lens was used, but that is much more rare for me than being impressed with the work of a photographer. Even though I own a large number of Leicas, I am not a person that goes weak at the knees when I learn that a particular shot was taken with a Leica, or , indeed, any other make of camera or lens.

William

I don't think anyone should mind your disinterest in technical questions when looking at photographs.

However, discussions about artists' tools, materials and techniques are not new at all. Painters in the Renaissance have been known to investigate into the mixture of paints and the capabilities of painting surfaces. Paul Klee, on the other hand, would have been better advised to do so; the paint on some of his paintings has a tendency to fall off the canvas. Contrary to what some tell us here in the forum, writers discuss the merits of different keyboards or displays or even how to back up their work. Or take musicians who unblushingly discuss southern Germany vs. Guarneri fiddles or Stainway grands vs. Fazioli or the latest gadgets that display the scores while you perform.

Some people like discussing how to improve the materials or workflows that go into their art. Some don't.

Edited by dau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, willeica said:

Adding data for LTMs or uncoded Ms would spoil the fun, for me anyway.

I don't understand. I use the LTMs with my M9 or MP. If used with the M9, then I add the lens used so I can easily use the information in subsequent searches. With the MP, the info is added when I scan the negs. What fun does it spoil? It's just the same as writing the same info into a little notebook or on the negs sleeve which I also do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have got the wrong end of the stick here.

Adding Exif info to files is solely for my own benefit, not for showing off. As I wrote before, the main purpose for me is to use this information in future searches or as a reminder for myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Michael Hiles said:

Camera and lens do not interest me at all. For a film-based image, the film can be of interest. Conceivably the developer... The photographer is of minor interest - but sometimes when I see a name, my expectations go up. But mainly it is the image. I want to see images that resonate and invite me back. 

It is not the film that takes the photograph. The photographer chooses the film and the chemicals, if relevant, and takes and makes the photograph. The most important element is what is in the frame.

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, willeica said:

I know this interests some people, Pete, but when it comes to photography it is the photographer that counts rather than the camera or lens. I know that this is heresy on a one make photography site. That being said, I occasionally wonder what lens was used, but that is much more rare for me than being impressed with the work of a photographer. Even though I own a large number of Leicas, I am not a person that goes weak at the knees when I learn that a particular shot was taken with a Leica, or , indeed, any other make of camera or lens.

William

William, I completely agree with you that it is the photographer that counts rather than the camera or lens.

One would hardly go to a top restaurant, partake in an excellent meal and enquire which brand of pots and pans the chef had used. 😃

However, I used to think that lenses were no more than metal tubes with glass inside and played no 'artistic' part in making a picture.  I discovered I was wrong when I started to recognise the differences in pictures produced with Sonnar lenses compared with Double-Gauss lenses for example and how they rendered the light differently (some call it "drew" differently).  

This is particularly evident in pictures shot with a wide aperture as the out-of-focus areas are rendered but is also evident in lower contrast lenses and those with under-corrected aberrations such as spherical aberration or coma where attractive (to me) 'glow' can be seen around some subjects.  "The view through older glass" thread provides many such examples of how different lenses render pictures.

I consider that lenses compare to a set of different paintbrushes with which to paint a picture.  For example I would not use a 50/1.4 Summilux asph lens for a portrait of a lady of a certain age because it is very sharp and unforgiving and will show every crease and wrinkle, which is unlikely to please the subject.  Instead I would prefer to use an older 50/1.4 Summilux pre-asph that is less harsh and offers lower contrast and therefore more graduated tonality and which makes the creases and wrinkles less prominent.

This is why from time to time I would like to know which equipment has been used to make a particular picture.

Pete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, willeica said:

It is not the film that takes the photograph. The photographer chooses the film and the chemicals, if relevant, and takes and makes the photograph. The most important element is what is in the frame.

William

I completely agree with this too, William, although you must concede that different film types will provide different pictures irrespective of the photographer.  For example, Adox Color Implosion film will produce a completely different picture of the same subject compared to Provia 160 no matter who is holding the camera or which they are pointing it.  Similarly the lens used 'can' affect the final picture.

Pete.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 hours ago, jaapv said:

As an aside, using Adobe's "save for the Web" will strip the EXIF off the image.

Only if you tell it to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As pointed out all the way back in Post #2 - you can always ask the image-maker what film, lens, body etc. was used, if you must.

Human communication, ya know? Better than counting on just 1s and 0s.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...